White nationalists aim to take over tiny North Dakota town >>>MOD ALERT<<<

The cultural differences are the easily mutable ones, and that's part of my point. Blacks and whites could embrace a common culture, and in fact very many do so. We just have what appears to be a vocal portion, even a minority, who won't, and they refuse to do so based in part on the simple physical differences and in part on existing in a racist culture or subculture that won't really let them escape it anyway.

 

So why should I give a rat's about his opinion? Is he somehow more important than Alice Walker, Alfre Woodard or Roxie Roker?

 

It's not off topic at all. It was a direct response to your argument.

"Fool"? So a scientist who discovered DNA and dedicated his life to understanding genetics arrives a conclusion that progressives do not like, and that makes him unintelligent?

It was good enough for Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Lyndon Johnson, eugenicists like Woodrow Wilson, the aforementioned James Watson, and many more. And again, you can only speculate who does/does not share these views nowadays.

I agree that the people who oppose white nationalist ideas are "morally repugnant folks", so thank you for the label.

Political correctness is a poisonous ideology that took root as a result of the cultural Marxist revolution in the 1960's. For most of this country's history, a spade was called a spade, and hopefully that becomes the norm again. Until then, enjoy the insular progressive bubble and multicultural delusion.

It doesn't work that way. Not in the real world, at least. Races are largely self-segregated already, without anyone even telling them to. If it really was the way you say it is, then we'd have an even distribution of people living in neighborhoods, cities, states, and regions, but we don't have that. People are more comfortable around their own kind. It's human nature... no need to fight it simply because some Marxist sociology professor says it's the right thing to do.

 

I would like to start by thanking all the participants for an entertaining read …
I would also like to take moment to express a few special Thank You's to some posters.

That is by far the dumbest question I have heard in a long time ... Thanks for the laugh.

Thank You Very Much ... I think it safe to say that you just considerably narrowed down the applicable pool of racist in this country.
I am not sure your partners are going to appreciate you indicating that there are very few racists around now ... And that those who are racists, are certainly in no position accomplish much of anything.

 

Possibly, or maybe they were just peacefully tolerating Harper being there. A black man with a white wife has less to fear from fellow whites than a white man would fear having a black girlfriend.

Having a racial consciousness is something every other race is encouraged to have. Whites are the only ones expected to abandon theirs.

There is one person in town who isn't white. That's a pretty high amount of homogeneity.

- - - Updated - - -

The differences between the races most likely won't result in a singular common culture. It's a nice thought, but there's just no history to support it.

- - - Updated - - -

Just trying to throw off your usual song and dance trying to make whites look like the only group who opposes race mixing.

 

No, it was an indirect response, the words of someone else from a thread over long ago.

My sincere apologies for not taking the bait.

Ah, dismissing the facts. Note that I said he has, in his old age, attacked a variety of folks.

Indeed, I believe I noted that it would appear that folks realize how morally repugnant racism is.

I did not mention you.

Marxism. Bravo. Abhorring racism is from an political ideology I do not adhere to. Man, tha tis some made up stuff right there.

 

One can be a superstitious SOB without being incapable of understanding organic chemistry.

Not in the real world. There are just places where the average black person would be too harassed to live. Where people are accustomed to living like civilized human beings, it is usually sorted out by economic factors. Blacks just have a lower income, in general, and are less likely to buy high-end houses out in the middle of nowhere where they would have to commute to even find work.

 

I responded directly to your argument. With I responded with is irrelevant.

That's pretty bigoted to assume an older person's opinion is not relevant. Hardly the actions of someone that conveys "tolerance".

Personally, I'll assume James Watson at age 70 is much more intelligent than the average progressive, at any age &#8212; based on his scientific education and accomplishments as they relate to this discussion.

There was once a time in America where people were burned at the stake for believing and saying certain things, even if their views were correct. Witch hunts and mob rule are not necessarily strong defenses on what is morally right and just in society.

I didn't say you did. I was thanking you for describing the people who oppose white nationalism as "morally repugnant folks", although I did question for a second why you would insult yourself. Seems like a weird thing to do.

Cultural Marxism. The kind of thinking where we need to pretend that blacks as a group contribute just as much to American society as whites. I think you do subscribe to that idea.

 

Watson is a geneticist. He arrived at the conclusions that he arrived at after a long career in the field, and many distinguished accomplishments.

Why do Hispanics commit far less violent crime than blacks, even though they have a similar percentage of their population living below the poverty line, are more likely to drop out of high school, and are less likely to graduate from college? If it was really about "lower income", shouldn't they be committing as much crime?

Explain to me why young black males (teenage to late 20's) are about 3% of the US population, yet they commit 35-40% of all forcible rapes? Now, I can at least understand the argument that young blacks are more likely to be unemployed and poor and are therefore more likely to rob someone (55% of all robberies), but what does being poor have to do with raping someone?

 

I know.

Marxist! Marxist! You are a Marxist! I lost an argument so I will call you a Marxist!

Odd that the only retort to defend your claimed ideology is to falsely accuse me of soothing.

Oh, rest assured that not being an ignorant white nationalist, I tend to judge the individual, and not the race. Indeed, I do not have the added chromosome nor were my parents related, so I tend not to subscribe to racist theories.

 

I concur. I was not arguing that it would. I was stating the opposite, in fact, though mainly I was describing the reasons I perceive for it. I was also pointing out that your own attitudes appear to be a part of the problem, since you seem eager to group all blacks under a single banner and condemn the lot of them.

 

It's nothing to be ashamed of. All progressive ideology is derived from Marxism. I realize it's a tainted word in the progressive lexicon, which is why they started calling themselves progressives in the first place.

I'll keep that in mind the next time a Christian bashing thread gets started.

I suspect that your avoidance of Truthist's eloquent response to this predictable and intellectually lacking gambit is that he hit the nail too squarely on the head &#8212; hit way too close to home, for comfort. But here it is again, since you missed it last time.

 

It's like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type thing with you, sometimes. Here's a post from you, yesterday:

What I'm doing is no different from what you did, here. You viewed blacks as a group of people you would not want to be around in the event that something particular happened (in this case, an economic collapse). Does that mean that you would not want to be around every single black person, or that you think every single black person would be "out for blood"? Of course not. You simply saw them as a collective and made a decision that you would not want to be around them, based on your perception of how they would react, should that event occur.

That's how I view the issue. I am very aware that there are many great black people out there who are law abiding, intelligent, educated, hard working, etc. The problem is that there is a significant percentage of their population that does not fit into this description. The crime statistics I posted are accurate, and it is not something I want to live around.

Where's the "problem" in my thinking? How is it any different from your thinking, yesterday?

 

I read the article looking for where this guy said or did anything as relates to White supremacy and can't seem to find anything but that he was wanted in Canada for "Hate Speech". Look Author Mark Steyn was fending off charges in court for over a year about his article in a magazine. because they did not offer up space" in the magazine for Muslim rebuttal. Canada's hate speech laws are a complete infringement on free speech and are extremely controversial and there has been a big battle to repeal them.

 

If the New Black Panther Party wanted to take over a town in New Jersey, what would the progressives in this thread be saying? For some reason, I think they would be a lot less venomous and a lot more understanding. After all, blacks are so deprived, don't they deserve their own city?

 

Trust me, I completely realize that when the moral failure of white nationalism is pointed out, the only resort is to falsely accuse someone of being something that you think is morally repugnant.

Odd. Is religion an immutable characteristic?

Oh, I read it, I just thought it (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hilarious that your only argument was to lamely attempt a backhanded insult.

Plus there is that whole global warming thing that you cherry picked out of it.

Odd that in a thread about moronic white nationalists your only arguemtn seemed to be attempts to insult, what with the global warming failure and calling me a Marxist. I guess that it demonstrates that your position, your claim of being sympathetic to white nationalism, and your prior claim of being a white nationalist in this thread, the only thing you have to defend that position was insults.

Marxist!

I think your argument boils down to petty name calling of other posters, and that speaks volumes as to the amount of wisdom and rational of white nationalism.

- - - Updated - - -

They often resort to name-calling, ad hominems, and various childish insults when scientific evidence contradicting their worldview is put forward.

That is from your link.

Marxist! You are a Marxist! You have a Marxist ideology!

Your posts are everything that you have criticized me for. Hilarious bit of hypocrisy.

 

Mark Steyn is a New York times best selling author. His book "America Alone" is the book that gives him that title. This book is banned in Canada as hate speech. Frankly in Canada you can hardly say anything without getting a charge of Hate Speech. So to say this guy is a supremacist simply by virtue of his crime of hate speech in Canada is not saying anything. I would need to see something else to be convinced of the main point behind the article.

 

Where do you see a conflict in this? I'm not denying what I said yesterday, which is that people will band together out of fear and anger in the event of an economic collapse and start rampaging. I am fairly certain that the racial violence we have seen so far from a number of blacks - not all blacks! - would only be many times worse in that situation, and not just from blacks...

I also expect there would be a violent response to them by other ethnic groups... Violence would easily escalate and people would be increasingly attacked just for their skin tone, because the violence would spread and its brutality would likely increase as well. People would be increasingly afraid and basically forced into isolated communities. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near any of that...

All I have been talking about today, however, is the fundamental driving forces behind race issues. Those same forces would be at the heart of those hypothetical race riots. I was talking about the racists, the bigots, becoming more violent towards those they have chosen to hate in response to an economic collapse, because these racist groups tend to blame societal problems on their chosen target group(s).

 

Trust me, I realize that when the moral failure of Marxism is pointed out, the only resort is to falsely accuse someone of being something that you think is morally repugnant.

Would that matter, since you judge the individual? Did I misread your post as an attempt at sounding like an individualist, and not a collectivist? That's what that was, right?

I'll trust that the honest members of the forum can see which one of us had to result to immature name calling and ad-hominem the most in support of our respective arguments.

There's a difference between saying someone subscribes to an element of cultural Marxism and calling someone a Marxist. I'll also trust that the honest members of PF will recognize that.

 

I never said "all blacks", so I don't see why you feel the need to point that out.

As you said earlier, it's human nature. If other groups are allowed to keep their racial identity and solidarity, I would prefer to have the same with fellow like-minded whites. It's naive to think that minorities are going to see themselves the way society wants whites to see themselves, as just "humans" and not as ethnic groups, especially since these minorities are not being challenged on their racism in any measurable way. Society has determined that blacks can say "black power" without any real backlash. Hispanics can put "brown pride" bumper stickers on their vehicles and get tattoos saying the the same thing. Only whites are pressured into not being proud of themselves.

 

Odd. In post 50 you stated rather clearly you were a white nationalist. I don't believe I falsely accused you of what you readily admitted.

 

White Nationalist/White Racist. Six one way, half a dozen the other.

Well then you definitely don't feel any compassion for your forefathers if that is the case.

 

Or you could move onto one of the many compounds that White Nationalist have around the country.

- - - Updated - - -

So when did the first black person commit a crime against someone white in this country? 2010.

You are more likely to be victimized by someone white than you are someone black.

 

Actually, I'm more apt to be victimized by someone white....if I live in a white area.
If I live in an area 50% black and 50% white--I'm more apt to be a victim by someone who is black.
And frankly---if I lived in a 40% black 60% white area---I believe I would be more apt to be a victim of someone who is black.

That is the reality of what is going on and it doesn't get better when people don't acknowledge the problem or the situation is justified by people who go back to a time when I wasn't even born.

 

That's what is so funny, these people think that there is some sort of new revelation going on with crime. I guess all those "black crime" threads started by certain posters are having the desired effect they are looking for.

So sad they have no idea they are being played the fool.